Ownership and Domain: The Travels of the Hawaiian "Uli-Uli" Rattle (Official Post 4)

As we discussed in class, Museums are essentially thieves of content, taking artifacts and objects from the world and heralding them as their own discovery and property. In class we proved this observation by tracking the path of the Native American chief club that was effectively stolen by a researcher hundreds of years ago. To further prove this point, I've tracked the path of another artifact in a museum collection, specifically from the National Museum of Natural History.

This is the "Uli-Uli" Rattle:

 This gourd rattle is an instrument native to Hawaii, used in traditional music, as well as ritualistic dances. These rattles are often adorned with feathers, as seen in the picture here for decorative purposes, though the rattle itself is simply made from a gourd.







The Museum of Natural History has one such rattle on display in its Hawaiian artifact collection, but where did it come from? Did a Hawaiian native give the rattle to the museum as a gift? Unlikely.

In fact, the NMNH lists the collector of this particular rattle as Nathaniel Bright Emerson. Seen to the left, Emerson was a physician and published author of Hawaiian mythology, one of his greatest works being the translation of David Malo's work on Hawaiian folklore. He was born in Hawaii himself, though he could scarcely be considered a "native."

In addition to Emerson, the NMNH lists the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition as the donor from which the rattle was given to the museum. The Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, was, in fact, a world fair held in Seattle, WA in 1909. Countries from all over the world gathered to present their collections and informational prowess on the campus of the University of Washington.


Given this information, I would surmise that the rattle was presented at the Exposition by Emerson, taken from his homeland of Hawaii, and remained the property of the Exposition after Emerson's death in 1915, where it eventually passed into the hands of the NMNH.

This journey raises some interesting questions about the ideas of ownership, though. As a part of the NMNH collection, the rattle now technically "belongs" to the museum, and before that, it was the property of Nathaniel Emerson. But the rattle was made by neither party, and has little to do with the culture and tradition of either of them. The rattle is a Hawaiian instrument, made and used by Hawaiians, and merely taken from them. Though it is not a particularly rare object, as the true "creators" of the object, are the Hawaiian natives not the true "owners" of the rattle?

This dilemma is much the same as our discussion of privacy policies in the digital world, oddly enough. As we discussed, websites like facebook, twitter, imgur, etc, technically have ownership of any photographs you might post to their site, regardless of the fact that you've authored them. Even though you are the creator, once the photo leaves the safety of your personal space, you effectively give up the rights to your creation to the internet.